Surprise from the US Supreme Court on same-sex marriage

[jtbell]

Five states appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse federal appeals court rulings that declared their state same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. A lot of people expected the Court to take up at least one of those cases and make a definitive ruling that would apply nationally.

However, the Court has declined to hear any of those appeals.

Supreme Court refuses to rule on same-sex marriage (CNN.com)

This makes same-sex marriage legal in those states: Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana. Six other states covered by those appeals courts may also be forced to lift their bans: West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming.

This will set off a lot of fireworks in South Carolina, for sure. Maybe even another bombardment of Fort Sumter?

[added] Actually, I expect our state officials will simply bluster and stonewall until the appeals court orders them to lift the ban in SC. It's a state constitutional amendment which was passed by a 78% popular vote in 2006.

[more] Yep, I thought so:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/sc-attorney-general-makes-statement-on-gay-marriage/28973922

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson says he will keep fighting to uphold the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Wilson says no ruling has been made in a lawsuit by a same-sex couple legally married in Washington, D.C., who live in South Carolina. They are asking to overturn the state's gay marriage ban. Wilson says he will keep fighting until there is a ruling in that case.

Experts don't think any appeals will work.

 

[lisab]

I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to "punt" on this issue. There is really no good, sound, Constitutional argument against gay marriage that I have heard (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

IMO, they're just delaying the inevitable.

 

[Astronuc]

It would seem that the Supreme Court left the matter at the level of the Appeals Courts, which so far ruled it the State bans unconstitutional, therefore it would seem the Federal government has deemed such a restriction as unconstitutional.

I believe the States were arguing that whatever powers were not explicitly granted to or reserved by the Federal government, were thus the purview of the States and the People. So therefore, a State (or even local government) can theoretically regulate certain relationships among certain people, as long as it does not violate equal protection.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

 

[jtbell]

http://www.thestate.com/2014/10/06/3728666_us-supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?rh=1 (The State, Columbia SC)

“The state can continue to fight if it wants, but it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money – (Haley and Wilson) are going to lose, but they may feel politically they don’t want to give in and have people say they are responsible for gay marriage in South Carolina,” said Donald Songer, a University of South Carolina political scientist and judicial expert.

Songer said Haley and Wilson are like South Carolina’s segregationist politicians of the past who fought federal laws and courts for years to prevent giving blacks equal rights.

“They (politicians in the past) didn’t want want people blaming them for ending segregated schools,” Songer said. “I hate to see politicians fight a fight they are clearly going to lose. All they are is delaying a little bit and they are clearly going to lose.”

 

[Czcibor]

I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to "punt" on this issue. There is really no good, sound, Constitutional argument against gay marriage that I have heard (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

IMO, they're just delaying the inevitable.

I also think that in long run such unions are going to be legal. However, also for me Astronuc's point seems very reasonable. The US constitution was written mostly a while ago, at times when there was no need to have any statement concerning marriage. In consequence it was not mentioned as an issue regulated by federal government, what leaves it by default as a state right, what provides states with big leeway that work in both ways.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is an interesting discussion on how the Supreme Court deals with such situations.

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/07/354371684/gay-marriage-ruling-evokes-memories-of-loving-v-Virginia

Late in the conversation, Walter Dellinger comments about the "normative power of the actual", in which "what is, seems right", which I take to mean some convention or practice or behavior that is so widespread or historic that it is considered customary or normal behavior.

 

[jtbell]

Things are getting interesting here:

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141008/PC1603/141009465/1031/first-same-sex-marriage-license-to-be-granted-in-charleston-county (Charleston Post and Courier)

Richland, Charleston counties issuing marriage license applications to same-sex couples (The State, Columbia)

Charleston Co. to issue same-sex marriage licenses; Couples denied licenses in Upstate (WYFF-TV, Greenville; with lively discussion in the comment section)

This fits the usual pattern of the Charleston and Columbia areas being more liberal/tolerant than the Upstate.

 

[mheslep]

I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court chose to "punt" on this issue. There is really no good, sound, Constitutional argument against gay marriage that I have heard (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

IMO, they're just delaying the inevitable.

For the court to act, they need an infringement of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. This time, prohibitions of gay marriage seem to fall under a failure to render due process of law (5th, 14th amendments). But otherwise, the court is obliged by the same constitution to stay out of the way.

 

[jtbell]

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that no licenses for same-sex marriages will be issued until a federal district judge rules on a case that is currently pending. Two women who were married in Washington sued the state a year ago to allow their marriage to be recognized in South Carolina. The district judge has asked the plaintiffs and the state to tell her by next Wednesday when they will file briefs in the case. Then will come the actual filings, and then her decision. Given the ruling of the appeals court above her in a case in Virginia, which the US Supreme Court let stand, she will surely have to rule for the plaintiffs and declare SC's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. Nevertheless, expect the state to drag this out as long as possible.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/10/09/3733962_breaking-sc-supreme-court-tells.html?rh=1 (The State, Columbia)

 

[jtbell]

A federal appeals court has upheld same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky. This ruling directly conflicts with the rulings that other appeals courts have made against such bans, which the Supreme Court declined to consider last month. Therefore the Supreme Court will probably have to rule on the issue after all.

Court upholds 4 same-sex marriage bans; will Supreme Court review? (cnn.com)

Here in South Carolina, a federal district judge was expected to rule any day now on this state's same-sex marriage ban, as described in the preceding post. Now the state will surely argue that the ban should continue until the Supreme Court decides the issue. Meanwhile, next door in North Carolina, same-sex couples have been getting married for the last month because the state decided not to stretch things out in the courts following the appeals court ruling. I wonder if someone will now file suit to halt those marriages.

 

[PeroK]

In a world where violence and war are all too common, it seems to me strange to take such exception to two people loving each other. Whoever they may be.

Would it be illegal for two people to take a vow of hatred towards each other?

 

[BobG]

It would seem that the Supreme Court left the matter at the level of the Appeals Courts, which so far ruled it the State bans unconstitutional, therefore it would seem the Federal government has deemed such a restriction as unconstitutional.

I believe the States were arguing that whatever powers were not explicitly granted to or reserved by the Federal government, were thus the purview of the States and the People. So therefore, a State (or even local government) can theoretically regulate certain relationships among certain people, as long as it does not violate equal protection.http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

One of the other problems with gay marriage bans is Article 4 of the Constitution.

Section 1 requires states to give "full faith and credit" to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states. This means if a couple marries in a state where gay marriage is legal, other states have to consider it valid... or does it mean states have to respect the laws of their neighbors and not marry visitors that travel from states that ban gay marriage solely for the purpose of getting married.

Section 2, Clause 1 gives US citizens the right to pass through, and to reside in any state in the US. In today's mobile society, it's pretty common for a gay married couple to move to a new state.

A state might be able to ban gay marriages within their state, but they still have to account for gay marriages, somehow. To do otherwise is chaos. A gay couple can be married in one state, move to another state, and find it's impossible for them to divorce because the state they now live in doesn't recognize gay marriage. If they're lucky, since the new state they live in doesn't recognize gay marriages, they can legally go on to marry someone of the opposite sex... until the day their state finally does recognize gay marriages and wake to the realization that they've now committed bigamy.

If reluctant states take a hard line and refuse to deal with gay marriages at all, I think they're pretty much guaranteeing their laws will be struck down...

... maybe. Rejecting cases so far because there's no disagreement between the lower federal appeals courts is valid, but I still wonder if there's more to it.

 

[SteamKing]

Would it be illegal for two people to take a vow of hatred towards each other?

IMO, no. It's done all the time. It becomes a problem for the law only when the parties decide to take overt action against one another which might cause bodily harm or result in slanderous or libelous statements being made.

 

[jtbell]

Here in South Carolina, a federal district judge was expected to rule any day now on this state's same-sex marriage ban, as described in the preceding post. Now the state will surely argue that the ban should continue until the Supreme Court decides the issue.

It appears that's exactly what has happened:

[Governor] Haley, [attorney general] Wilson file motion to stop gay couple from marrying in Charleston (The State newspaper)

The motion cites a Thursday 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ 6th Circuit, which on Thursday upheld bans on same-sex marriage in four Midwest states.

Four other circuits' courts of appeal (including the one that covers South Carolina!) have rejected bans on same-sex marriage; these were the decisions that the Supreme Court declined to consider last month.

 

[Imager]

Probably a lot cheaper the government would get out of the marriage business completely and leave it to the churches...

 

[Evo]

Probably a lot cheaper the government would get out of the marriage business completely and leave it to the churches...

Then marriages wouldn't be legal, they would just be ceremonial, there would be nothing legally binding.

 

[dlgoff]

Then marriages wouldn't be legal, they would just be ceremonial, there would be nothing legally binding.

Just heard on KCTV5 that Johnson Counties(ens) are coming to Douglas County for marriage license.

 

[Imager]

Then marriages wouldn't be legal, they would just be ceremonial, there would be nothing legally binding.

With a 50% divorce rate in the US, I'd suggest it's just binding for the attorneys.

 

[Evo]

Imager, the point of this thread is gay people wanting to be legally married for the legal benefits afforded to married couples. Please stay on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

With a 50% divorce rate in the US, I'd suggest it's just binding for the attorneys.

Aside from the statement itself being wrong, you're not understanding what the issue is about. Marriage (for the government) is a legally binding contract that carries with it certain rights and responsibilities. That's what the gay marriage issue is about: getting gay couples those rights and responsibilities via the government-recognized contract.

True, the government doesn't have to call it "marriage", but the name change doesn't really impact what the issue is about.

 

[jtbell]

It's now all over in South Carolina except probably for the shouting.

Late last week, a federal judge ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, and that county officials had to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses beginning noon yesterday (Thursday) unless the state could get a higher court to overturn or stay his ruling. On Tuesday, the 4th circuit appeals court (the same one that ruled against the same-sex marriage ban in Virginia) turned down the state attorney general's appeal. On Wednesday, the state AG appealed to the US Supreme Court for an emergency stay, citing the disagreement among circuit appeals courts (four or five ruling against same-sex marriage bans, one supporting a state's right to decide). Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay, by a 7-2 vote.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141120/PC16/141129958/1177 (Charleston Post and Courier)

The Supreme Court will still have to resolve the conflict in circuit appeals court rulings, probably by next summer. So far, five or six of the ten circuits have weighed in. (I've lost count.) However, I find it hard to believe that they would choose to change the situation "on the ground" in all those states that have had their same-sex marriage bans overturned at the circuit level so far.

 

[leroyjenkens]

There is really no good, sound, Constitutional argument against gay marriage that I have heard (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

There's no good argument from any angle; constitutional, logical, or moral, for gay marriage to be illegal. They literally have an untenable position, and they're only getting away with it so far because there's so many people who hold that untenable position.

Of all the real problems we have in the world, these people are taking a non-problem, saying it's a problem, and then making that "problem" one of the biggest "problems" in society today. It's unreal.

Would it be illegal for two people to take a vow of hatred towards each other?

A good point that illustrates the immorality of society. Just look at movie ratings. Which movies are the most harshly rated? The ones that involve nudity and people having sex. A movie about war, killing, and hate can get by with a PG-13 rating. But if people make love, we can't let children see that.